Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

hyperstealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 309 posts

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#171

Post by rtkwe »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #157
samstave wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a really odd thought cross my head and want to just document here before I forget it: The way rifles work with recoils driving the expulsion of a shell after firing and using that force to load the next round to chamber (the famous AK47 design) -- Would there be a method of attaching a compressed water bottle with valve with a donut nozzle with vents out at angles to the optimal suppression of the muzzle f…

A flash hider such as a "3 prong" achieves the same affect with no moving parts, also suppressors can pretty much eliminate all flash and offer hearing protection and additional signature reduction by reducing the db levels and changing the pitch of the noise.

Yeah for a fraction of the cost in complexity, weight and issues with consumables a suppressor does all of what they were talking about and more. The US army is in theory going to a new rifle and issuing suppressors to every (frontline) infantry unit with the NGSW contract.

(We'll see how widely the new system and everything actually gets deployed but it was an important part of the whole program at least)

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#172

Post by rtkwe »

nordsieck wrote: post #90
guessbest wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find the who camouflage switch to every branch of service, including the navy to be bizarre. Who thought it was good idea for navy seamen to be camouflaged in the water? With that line of reasoning why didn't the airforce get their own camouflage to look like a flight line? hah > After six years in the fleet and some controversy, the blue-and-gray cammies could be headed for Davy Jones' seabag. https://w…

> I personally find the who camouflage switch to every branch of service, including the navy to be bizarre. Who thought it was good idea for navy seamen to be camouflaged in the water? With that line of reasoning why didn't the airforce get their own camouflage to look like a flight line? hah Not everything the military does is about effectiveness. Sometimes senior NCOs want the enlisted to "look military", not just…

In addition to things other people have said there's a lot of roles that aren't combat so increasing the number of women who can qualify can fill out those roles (logistics, the reams of sundry clerical work, maintenance, etc) where physical strength isn't as critical helps fill out a volunteer army.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#173

Post by rtkwe »

_petronius wrote: post #72
retSava wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting macro-variant is the Berlin brigade tank camo pattern, which is surprisingly cool! No idea where that comes into uniform camo pattern history nor how efficient it is, but who cares. It's cool beans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Infantry_Brigade#/media...

Maybe it is related to dazzle camoflauge used on ships? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage There the goal is less to avoid detection and more to make it hard to determine direction/orientation.

Dazzle camo wasn't so much a "hide me" camo as it was a "hide data needed to shot me" camo. It was designed to make it harder to estimate heading and speed so it was harder to calculate accurate shots by submarines and naval guns which needed data about the target ship's speed, distance and heading to calculate an accurate shot.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#174

Post by pookha »

some_random wrote: post #12
_tomcat_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idk, but it seems to undermine national security. Maybe in here somewhere, "Various statutes supplement the provisions of Chapter 37 to criminalize activities that jeopardize the national defense or national security." IANAL ;)

I'm sure the senior military officials pushing UCP through were doing so to intentionally handicap the organization they spent their entire life working for. Rather than just making a mistake based on overestimating their own knowledge. If that's criminalized, all of HN is going behind bars.

I was deployed to CENTCOM in the USAF when these uniforms went into service. Worked closely with Army...If memory serves they were flammable and poorly tested (circa 2006). I can remember the Army units I talked to were having major problems. So if you had the misfortune of getting deployed outside the wire and had to wear those things I could see why you might be a little keyed up 15+ years later.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#175

Post by shard »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #15

Now I want to show up at our Zoom meetings in full camo. Doctors and soldiers get such cool uniforms, but us programmers are just business casual. Plus then you could convince a few of your coworkers to show up in camo with you and make your manager nervous you’re about to do a hostile takeover of the company.

This makes me think of the camo scenes in RDJ's Sherlock Holmes movie: https://tenor.com/view/sherlock-holmes-robert-downey-jr-chai...

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#176

Post by shard »

happyopossum wrote: post #154
malkia wrote: post #138

Why do (US?) hunters go in camouflage? Would that trick the animals... or rather trick other hunters, and not see them... always seemed weird going in full camouflage... for hunting.

Most hunters in the US wear a blaze orange vest or hat to identify themselves to other hunters. In some states it's codified by law, and in others it's strongly encouraged (in California it's a big part of the mandatory hunter safety course, but is not legally required). Many big game animals are color-blind (or more specifically, see color differently than we do), so a camo pattern with orange can still hide one fro…

What if the deer is also color-blind? What colors do deer see anyway?

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#177

Post by fho »

Question (from somebody who only skimmed the article): how much variance exists of that fabric? Is that pattern repeated after x meters if fabric?

If so: wouldn't knowing what to look for greatly increase the ability to automatically extract the pattern from image data? (Like how it is possible to extract signals from below the noise floor in LoRa communication?)

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#178

Post by Retric »

imwillofficial wrote: post #144
Retric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a diagnostic test. Like how a loss of fuel efficiency is a sign that something is wrong with an engine, if someone can’t meet the standard something has gone wrong. Which is why it was treated as a pure pass fail.

It’s a standards test, where failing can potentially get you kicked out. While also used as a diagnostic to let you know if you’re slipping, its primary and only stated purpose is to uphold an objective standard. This makes variations by age and sex concessions to that goal, rather than design elements.

The standards test is different. Occupational Physical Assessment Test results are Unqualified, Moderate, Significant, or Heavy which is then used to decide if someone meets an appropriate standard.

Meanwhile the Army would sometimes retain people incapable of passing the old age and gender standard. As an extreme example people with missing limbs could be retained.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#179

Post by Sharlin »

rtkwe wrote: post #171
abrokenpipe wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flash hider such as a "3 prong" achieves the same affect with no moving parts, also suppressors can pretty much eliminate all flash and offer hearing protection and additional signature reduction by reducing the db levels and changing the pitch of the noise.

Yeah for a fraction of the cost in complexity, weight and issues with consumables a suppressor does all of what they were talking about and more. The US army is in theory going to a new rifle and issuing suppressors to every (frontline) infantry unit with the NGSW contract. (We'll see how widely the new system and everything actually gets deployed but it was an important part of the whole program at least)

Why not just build one in? I guess I'm accustomed to assault rifles having flash suppressors because the one that I've actually handled and lugged around and shot with, the Valmet RK 62, does have a suppressor built in, a distinctive feature [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#180

Post by jessaustin »

some_random wrote: post #79
jessaustin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, my first comment on the thread, consisting entirely of a quote from expert analysts, and already I'm a "luddite Reformer". (Idiosyncratic capitalization also doesn't help you seem balanced and rational.) This turkey was designed in the 1990s. The contract was awarded in 2001. The first f35 flew in 2006. When will this "technology" no longer be "new"? Presumably it will be some time, since the entire fleet was gr…

As far as I know you're not a Reformer, which is a proper noun and therefore capitalized, but the "expert analyst" you quoted is. Honestly that tells me enough about your familiarity with this subject

Please link to any source that indicates "Luddite" shouldn't be capitalized or "reformer" should, especially with Capt. Grazier cited as some sort of exemplar of the concept. You've had lots to say ITT but haven't cited a single authority to indicate you're not just making it all up.
Post reply on HN